It looks as though Microsoft and European regulators are butting
heads once again. The European Union is asking Microsoft to remove new
security features, including its improved built-in firewall, that have been added to Vista. Microsoft is urging the
European to back off and has threatened
to delay Vista’s European launch as a result of the latest calls for
feature reductions. The new features, which make Vista a more stable and secure
platform that its Windows XP predecessor, are seen as a stifling competition.
"Less diversity and innovation would ultimately harm consumers through
reduced choice and higher security risks," said Jonathon Todd, an EU
competition spokesman.

Microsoft's Associate General Counsel, Erich Andersen, is
trying to help the software giant walk the line balancing security with abiding
by the law. "We are concerned that [regulators] might require the removal
of some of the security features we've demonstrated. We want to launch Windows
Vista in a fully lawful manner and we want to avoid regulatory decisions that
could increase security risks for European consumers. One of principal concerns
is that European concerns have access to the same new security features in
Windows Vista as everyone else."

Making Windows more secure was a pivotal design point for
Windows Vista. The Windows XP operating system has been the target of numerous
attacks in the past five years and Microsoft saw fit to make its consumer
operating system less of a target. Unfortunately for Microsoft, the European Union
wants the company to leave those duties to 3rd party software developers.

Microsoft was fined $634 million USD in 2004 by the European
Union for monopolistic practices and was fined another $357
million USD this past July for not complying with antitrust rulings.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

And NATO, like the UN, is primarily the US. Whats the ratio of USA UN and NATO troops in the various countries in the world vs all the other UN and NATO countries combined? 100:1? 1000:1? The UN, as its been since before WW2, is still a powerless, gutless entity unless the US steps up and takes the lead. It needs to be dissolved.

Yeah. We get shit done. European nations of the UN and NATO send a few hundred troops each, sometimes. The US sends thousands if not hundreds of thousands. Also what country is there with billions of dollars in aid when natural disasters hit not just our own country but others as well? The US. Enough said.

In what way was invading Iraq or Afganistan morally right? In both cases you went in without a formal declaration of war (in violation of the Geneva convention). Iraq was an even bigger debacle, the US claimed they biological weapons, of which there was no evidence at the time, and there still isn't. And just so we're clear on this, by what right are *you* allowed nukes, but no one else is? Let me remind you that the only country in the world to have ever actually *used* weapons of mass destruction is the US, and they were both on civilian targets!
Secondly, it is exactly the US's arrogant disregard to international law and opinion that are de-stablising large areas of the world. Iraq may not have been a garden paradise under Hussein, but it was safer than it is under US occupation! Israel is copying US militirism and just invading who the hell it wants because the US got away with it.
Then you have Quantanamo Bay, I don't care how you cut it, you are denying those prisoners their rights under the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or their Rights as POWs under the Geneva Convention (probably both). This is even before we bring in the American Constitution (which is why the prison is in Cuba, not on American soil). With all this lying and hypocracy, I wouldn't believe Bush if he said the sky was blue, or the grass was green! For the record, I wouldn't believe Blair either.
Thirdly, the major reason you don't know about the troops we deploy, as opposed to the US, is because we do different things. *You* tend to go in and blow stuff up, we go in afterwards and have to clean up the goddamn mess! Our military is designed to keep the peace, 2 devestating world wars have taught us that war is bad. Two world wars made you into a super power, so you still see it as a more viable solution.
As for the terrorist problem, the actions of the US military are only exacerbating the problem by reinforcing the belief in Muslem countries that the West are enemies of Islam. Heavy handed tactics never work against such people. Just look at Israel with the Palestinian problem, or in Northern Ireland to name but two. Although Ireland is calming down now because diplomatic efforts to stop the violence.

War is not the answer, violence solves nothing, it just causes further antagonises the situation, but that seems to be an alien concept on the other side of the pond.

>In what way was invading Iraq or Afganistan morally right?
Afganistan was home to Al-Qaida and it needed "cleaning house", especially to prevent further attacks. Besides, the Taliban sells opium non-stop. In Iraq you had a corrupt regime that was contributing to destabilizing the region, and a leader using its wealth to help to do so. Saddam needed to go. He was also taking all the wealth and holding the populace back. The populace was incapable of overthrowing the regime, so it had to be changed by force. Now there are a bunch of homocidal/suicidal crazies, and they aren't the coalition people that are there!

>the only country in the world to have ever actually *used* weapons of mass destruction is the US, and they were both on civilian targets!
That's really colored. That's hyperbole. You mean nukes? Nukes were used long ago, and it caused Japan to surrender, and they're a far superior nation now for it. But go back to your history class.

>And just so we're clear on this, by what right are *you* allowed nukes, but no one else is?
Sure, nukes for everyone. Nukes on the house. Just let me escape off into a fully colonized Mars base first. The US invented nuclear technology, it's the progress of science and technology. We also require nuclear weapons as a deterrent because aggressive nations like China and formerly the Soviet Union had them. India and Pakistan have nuclear power and nuclear weapons but they haven't been stupid enough to get mad enough to use them on each other. It's a lose-lose for India because fallout in Pakistan would drift westward and harm India anyway.

>Then you have Quantanamo Bay
Interrogating those prisoners has saved numerous lives in the civilized world. They were killers. They're not out killing causing problems while they're there.

>Two world wars made you into a super power, so you still see it as a more viable solution.
Go back and read your history. You don't have as much insight into the US government as you think.

>War is not the answer, violence solves nothing, it just causes further antagonises the situation, but that seems to be an alien concept on the other side of the pond.
Pacifism is an ideal we all dream of, but aggression comes out of our animalistic nature. You have to be a realist. You also have to thank the U.S. for having the bravery to end WWII. But what the hell kind of sense is there in a suicide bomber? Try, I dare ya to blame the U.S. for the whole 'murdering innocents makes me go to heaven' mentality.

Keep continuing your education on world affairs, but I would be more skeptical of anti-American biased propaganda. You might learn something from Bush's speeches which are all available at WhiteHouse.Gov.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken